[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Harmony acoustics, 1925
I thought they were styrene.Terrible pressings.I have
only picked them up,when I have not seen the
recordings any other way
Roger Kulp
--- David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Harmony existed as a budget LP label from around
> 1956 well into the 70s, and
> also briefly as a 78 label in the late 40s. That
> version was sold through Eli
> Oberstein's channels (Columbia also pressed some
> Varsity discs at that time)
> and consisted mostly of reissues of Columbia and
> Brunswick sides, plus some new
> recordings by Rosemary Clooney and Pearl Bailey
> (both of whom were moved onto
> the regular label when they were found to have sales
> potential).
>
> Harmony reissues on LP had horrible EQ, designed to
> sound good on cheap HiFi
> units. Tons of reverb added on their pop reissues,
> and pressings on something
> akin to styrene but not quite (at least in Canada we
> got the same borderline
> regrind vinyl the full-price Columbias got).
>
> dl
>
> Rod Stephens wrote:
>
> > As an additional sidebar, Harmony was still being
> used by Columbia as a
> > budget label in 1958 when re-released a shorter
> version of my college
> > choir's original 1954 Entré LP. It was shortened
> by four selections,
> > and of course, sold for less.
> >
> > Rod Stephens
> >
> > Dick Spottswood wrote:
> >
> > >Harmony was launched in the summer of 1925 as a
> budget label. It retailed
> > >at $0.50 (I think) and slightly more west of the
> Rockies. Columbia's
> > >electrically-made products required royalty
> payments to Westen Electric.
> > >Harmony (and spin-offs Velvet Tone and Diva)
> didn't require royalties and
> > >allowed acoustic recording equipment from
> becoming obsolete, at least for
> > >a few years. Vocalion also became a budget label
> for a few months in
> > >1925, retailing acoustically made discs for fifty
> cents until 10/22/1925,
> > >when the first electric masters for Vocalion were
> made. The price soon
> > >went back to 0.75.
> > >
> > >Dick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >George Brock-Nannestad <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
> > >Sent by: Association for Recorded Sound
> Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
> > >10/23/2006 02:23 PM
> > >Please respond to
> > >Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > >To
> > >ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >cc
> > >
> > >Subject
> > >Re: [ARSCLIST] Early Polydor electrics, the
> depression, etc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >Steven Smolian wrote (snipped)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I have no documentation to prove it but feel
> certain that the reason
> > >>Columbia made paralell recordings acoustically
> to their electrics, the
> > >>former issued on Harmony, was to cater to the
> old wind-up market.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >----- I have always thought that when Frank
> Andrews in his discography of
> > >10"
> > >English Columbia records speaks about "electrical
> re-recording" in 1925 he
> > >
> > >means taking the acoustic record, playing it and
> creating a new
> > >electrically
> > >recorded master, while retaining the old
> catalogue number. So I never
> > >thought that they were making parallel recordings
> > >
> > >----- someone with a better collection than mine
> (or better finding aids)
> > >may
> > >be able to confirm this - there is a chance of a
> change in the background
> > >noise at the beginning of the electrical one (if
> in pristine condition)
> > >
> > >----- on the other hand, I would prefer positive
> proof that parallel
> > >sessions
> > >were used.
> > >
> > >Kind regards,
> > >
> > >George
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com